I completely agree with the WSJ Law Blog: "The Law Blog rarely tries to force feed our readers, but we beseech you: If you missed the Clarence Thomas 60 Minutes interview last night, carve out some time to check it out. We frankly weren’t that psyched for it, but sat on our couch, transfixed. It was great television — from vivid illustrations of his hardscrabble upbringing to mesmerizing flashbacks of his confirmation hearings to shots of his driving down the highway in his beloved doublewide. (Click here for the transcript, and here and here for the video segments.)"
I'll say this, I still believe Anita Hill (more so after David Brock's confessions of making up a smear campaign against her). I don't think her accusations should have disqualified Thomas from the court (just like I didn't care about Bill Clinton's affairs). I thought then and still think his lack of experience should have disqualified him. I've only read a few of his opinions and I'm pretty neutral on them. I obviously disagree with his ultraconservative positions but fair enough. I think his absolutist views on originalism and objection to stare decisis is a bit to academic and not practical enough. After seeing this 60 Minutes interview, I think Thomas is doing himself a disservice by not speaking out more publicly. I agree with him that picking our Supreme Court justices on the basis of their abortion views is crazy. I want a constitutional amendment defining and protecting the right of privacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment